The Twelve Tribes of Methodism Pt. 2

In part 1 I made the case for twelve groupings (tribes) within the Methodist denomination:

Inclusive, Small Tent, Progressive	Inclusive, Big Tent, Progressive	Exclusive, Big Tent, Progressive	Exclusive, Small Tent Progressive
Inclusive, Small Tent, Centrist	Inclusive, Big Tent, Centrist	Exclusive, Big Tent, Centrist	Exclusive, Small Tent, Centrist
Inclusive, Small Tent, Traditionalist	Inclusive, Big Tent, Traditionalist	Exclusive, Big Tent, Traditionalist	Exclusive, Small Tent, Traditionalist

In part 2 I'll start describing what each of these groups may be like. We'll walk down each of the columns. The columns roughly line up with Rev. Tom Berlin's categories of Progressive Incompatibilist, Progressive Compatibilist, Traditional Compatibilist, and Traditional Incompatibilist. I'll start with a one sentence description and then gives some thoughts.

1. Inclusive, Small Tent, Progressive - A liberal theology that believes the Gospel can tolerate nothing less than full inclusion. An organization like Love Prevails could be in this group. This tribe would have natural tensions with every other tribe except for those directly adjacent in the table above. I have to think this group is very small within the UMC. The small tent nature would make it likely that most have already left. At the same time, some of these members have been fighting for justice for 40+ years. If they haven't left now I would expect them to keep fighting.

2. Inclusive, Small Tent, Centrist - In theory, this person is someone who is theologically in line with the large majority of our UMC doctrine, is inclusive, and for whom issues of justice for the marginalized are first order issues. One of my critiques of the Traditional Plan is that it puts full participation of LGBT+ people ahead of even the deepest pieces of our faith like the divinity of Christ. That happens with this group, too. For example, this person might be willing to remove the Virgin Birth from our doctrinal standards but simealtaneously will not live in the same denomination with someone who excludes LGBT+ participation. These folks could conceivably work with either of the groups in this column or, reluctantly, the second column. Theological centrists have fewer essentials than either progressives or traditionalists (traditionalists increasingly approaching fundamentalism and progressives increasing approaching relativism that rejects any absolute) which is why both ends will sometimes call them wishywashy. They (we) are not. If you challenge a centrist's essentials there will be a reaction. The centrist simply has fewer essentials to begin with. Anecdotally, I think this group is probably very small. The people I can think of who may fit here are Big Tent centrists who are weary of the fight.


3. Inclusive, Small Tent, Traditionalist - This person holds to orthodox views including an exceptionally high authority of Scripture, but rather than a literalist hermeneutic this person uses a hermeneutic of love. If the starting point for interpreting Scripture is 1 John 4:8 - "God is love" and if exclusion represents not loving then inclusion is a necessity. I had a friend in seminary who may be in this category. I remember him saying, "I take the Bible so seriously that I have to be a Democrat." For the record, I disagree with his assessment that any Christian must be in one political party or the other. I share that example simply to help the reader understand this position. Like the Inclusive, Small Tent, Progressive, I have to think this person has a hard time working well with others. 


Some notes about these tribes:

- The second and third probably have vanishingly small numbers. A small tent and inclusive ideology don't naturally fit well together.
- The most versatile of these tribes still cannot work well with at least half of the other tribes. 
- Especially if you are a traditionalist, I encourage you to think about all of the examples you have heard of the radical nature of those who are inclusive. I'd wager almost all of them come from the upper left corner of the table. All four corners represent a kind of extremism. They are loud, but they are not representative of as large a number of people as you might think. 
- When those of us who supported the One Church Plan say it was a compromise, please understand that this column is one of the groups that would have had to compromise. Nobody in any of these three tribes liked the OCP. Without exception, the people in these groups that I know saw the Simple Plan as a compromise. 

Part 3 will look at the next column. This is the column where I find myself and where I think most OCP supporters were. The failure of the OCP came in not translating our message for column 3.